Re: draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

Joyce,

two points that the IESG uncovered early in its deliberations:

- Standards-track RFCs do not contain any indication of their 
standardization level - only the index does that.

- KRE has indicated that he would be satisfied if the appeal resulted in a 
cycle in grade (to Proposed) rather than an advancement to Draft.

So a publication of the RFC would not foreclose a reclassification to 
Proposed.

Based on these two points, the IESG deliberately did not send a HOLD to the 
RFC Editor.

                   Harald

--On fredag, januar 24, 2003 09:44:05 -0800 Joyce Reynolds <jkrey@ISI.EDU> 
wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> We fully understand your concerns.  We need to resolve this issue, and
> are open to disussions of possible actions.  Since there might be a
> procedural question here, we feel the IAB should be involved.
>
> We do understand your concerns that there may be denial of service
> attack risk here.
>
> We do not want to publish material that's in error, yet we do
> understand a need for prompt publication of documents.
>
> Joyce
> (on behalf of RFC Editor)